Cited by 55Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesRadiation Dose and Imaging

Evaluation of optimization methods for intensity-based 2D-3D registration in x-ray guided interventions

van der Bom, I. M. J., Klein, S., Staring, M., Homan, R., Bartels, L. W., Pluim, J. P. W.·2011·SPIE Proceedings

Abstract

The advantage of 2D-3D image registration methods versus direct image-to-patient registration, is that these methods generally do not require user interaction (such as manual annotations), additional machinery or additional acquisition of 3D data. A variety of intensity-based similarity measures has been proposed and evaluated for different applications. These studies showed that the registration accuracy and capture range are influenced by the choice of similarity measure. However, the influence of the optimization method on intensity-based 2D-3D image registration has not been investigated. We have compared the registration performance of seven optimization methods in combination with three similarity measures: gradient difference, gradient correlation, and pattern intensity. Optimization methods included in this study were: regular step gradient descent, Nelder-Mead, Powell-Brent, Quasi-Newton, nonlinear conjugate gradient, simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation, and evolution strategy. Registration experiments were performed on multiple patient data sets that were obtained during cerebral interventions. Various component combinations were evaluated on registration accuracy, capture range, and registration time. The results showed that for the same similarity measure, different registration accuracies and capture ranges were obtained when different optimization methods were used. For gradient difference, largest capture ranges were obtained with Powell-Brent an…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/12.877655

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Classical 2D/3D rigid registration methods apply ray tracing to CT volumes to render synthetic X-rays (DRRs).

    “Classical 2D/3D rigid registration methods apply ray tracing to CT volumes to render synthetic X-rays, referred to as digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) in medical imaging [4, 53].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Bom, I. M. J., Klein, S., Staring, M., Homan, R., Bartels, L. W., & Pluim, J. P. W.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Philips (Netherlands) (NL)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Venue
SPIE Proceedings
Publisher
SPIE
Published
2011-03-03
Volume
7962
Pages
796223
ISSN
0277-786X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090633329
Cited by
55
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.15
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
2D-3D registration, intensity-based registration, optimization methods, cone-beam computed tomography, digital radiography, similarity measures, Nelder-Mead, simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation, registration accuracy, capture range, registration time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review